I should start by noting that the last 30 minutes or so of the movie was very compelling, and the three men the movie is about are true heroes who deserve the honor of having a movie made about them, as well as the honor of playing themselves in said movie.

And yet I find myself in surprising agreement with Slate. There was something very clunky about the arc of the plot. There was an obvious attempt to make a feel good movie for social conservatives, where a lifetime immersed in traditional values of God, guns, and masculine virtues leads three ordinary seeming men to step up when it mattered most and do something profoundly heroic. Even if the movie succeeded here it would probably have been a little bit clunky (think the production quality of Fireproof), but it would have been a feel good clunky. That is the movie I was expecting, or at least hoping for.

The problem is the story contradicts the very arc it is trying to convey. The movie shows Spencer Stone and Alek Skarlatos as children of single mothers who are clearly desperate for the missing fathers in their lives. Everyone in the early part of the movie notices this except for the boys and their mothers. Even worse, while the movie provides this information, the perspective of the movie is that such an idea is nonsense; whenever the importance of fathers is mentioned it is portrayed as an attack on God, family, and an unfair attack on the boys themselves.

The best example of this bizarre perspective is when the boy’s public school teacher calls the mothers in for conferences. The mothers decide to team up and have both conferences at once to provide each other moral support, since the teacher is unfairly picking on their sons. After the teacher states that boys of single mothers struggle more (statistically), Stone’s mother is outraged and responds with:

My God is bigger than your statistics!

This is delivered in such a way that it is clearly intended as one of the key feelgood lines of the movie. Ha! She sure taught that godless public school teacher a lesson about Christ! While craven excuses for rampant single motherhood are extremely common in conservative Christian circles, this scene was so bizzarre that even modern Christians are likely to scratch their heads. The official modern Christian tack when excusing single motherhood is to acknowledge the cost that children pay but blame the fathers. But the movie doesn’t even bother trying to do this. There is no hint that Stone’s father cheated on or abused his mother or abandoned the family. The message is one of outrage that the ostensibly godless teacher had such antiquated views of the family and dared to shame the Christian single mothers.

When googling the line I happened on the relevant section from the book, and while the book explains that she only wished she said the feel good line it is clear that the message was outrage at shaming single mothers by suggesting that fathers are essential:

“You know, boys with single moms,” the teacher went on, “it’s just statistics, Ms. Eskel. Statistically they’re more likely to develop problems.”

Statistics? Joyce seethed. How dare this woman look down on her just because she was a single mom and her kid was a little behind? She lit up with a million things she wanted to say to this woman. You know what, she thought, my God is bigger than the world’s statistics, so I don’t really care what any of you say. You don’t get to talk to me like that.

One thing both the book and the movie do is weave in this outrage at the idea that fathers are essential with the mothers’ rejection of the teacher’s advice to put the boys on ADD drugs. In essence, both the book and the movie are ironically using ADD as an attempt to distract the viewer/reader from the absurdity of the single motherhood is God’s way tack.

From here the boys are sent to a private Christian school, but they continue to have the same problems relating to lack of discipline and respect for authority. The movie shows them remaining in the halls having a casual conversation after the bell rings, even as all of their peers scramble to get to class. When confronted by a teacher, the boys cop an attitude, and this same attitude causes them to repeatedly be sent to the principal’s office. This is framed in the movie as the school being unfair, even though the movie shows the boys repeatedly acting out. I noticed from the same link to the book that the movie is true to the book here as well:

[After Spencer didn’t win his bid for School President], Spencer’s hatred for the school grew. The place rubbed him the wrong way. They were too involved. The way they enveloped every part of his life was too much; he had gone from a fatherless home to a place with a dozen new fathers and mothers. It didn’t feel right, even though he didn’t quite know how to explain why it felt wrong. Spencer was small and unconfident, and the teachers felt off to him; they were unlike the teachers at his old school. He didn’t like going to church and school with the same people, under the same authority; it was the mixing of two worlds for which some separation felt natural. People were always watching. They were too interested in him, but seemed to be looking past him, through him, like he had some rotten thing inside he hadn’t known about but they were certain was there. When he bristled and pushed back they punished him, pulled him into the principal’s office and kept him there for hours, which felt like days, insulting his character, invoking God to reduce him to tears and assure him he was shaming the Lord, that he needed to conform because he was walking down a path toward sure damnation.

From here the movie switches from God to guns, but the same problem occurs. After it is well established that Spencer is growing up without a father and rebellious against authority, Spencer invites a friend (Anthony Sadler) over to see his room. Spencer starts showing Anthony his collection of Airsoft (toy) guns, and then pulls out what looks like a 12 gauge shotgun. Spencer confirms that the chamber is empty before dry firing it, explaining that it is for hunting. Anthony replies that black people don’t hunt, and the two head off to teepee the neighbor’s house. The scene was clearly intended to invoke a feel good feeling from firearm enthusiasts, but as a solid member of their target audience I was left with the same feeling as the line about God and single mothers. The right way to make the point they were trying to make would have been to show Spencer’s father taking him hunting and teaching him self discipline and gun safety. Hopefully that happened prior to the divorce, because there is no hint that Spencer’s mother did these things.

Eventually the movie shows the mean authority figures of the Christian private school as strongly suggesting that Alek move in with his father. Again, the events the movie shows make his and Spencer’s need for their fathers abundantly clear, but the frame of the movie is that this was mere cruelty on the school’s part. Alek goes to live with his father and we don’t see him until all three friends are around 18 or 19. I won’t go through the rest of the plot with the same level of detail, but the story arc continues to suffer because of the movie’s internal contradiction. Adult Alek (now played by the real life Alek) comes off as much more self assured than adult Spencer does, but Spencer and to a lesser extent Alek are both shown as continuing to struggle with paying attention and discipline.

In the end, all three of these men did something truly extraordinary, and they deserve all of the adulation they have received. But the movie itself fails because it is at war with the very message it is trying to convey.

Perhaps the movie is intentionally undermining single motherhood? Showing that single motherhood is bad, despite the single mothers (the villains?) telling us otherwise?

It’s not uncommon for books or movies to have an unreliable narrator, whose version of events is not to be trusted. Or a villain who justifies his actions with arguments that are ultimately proven false?

Statistics? Joyce seethed. How dare this woman look down on her just because she was a single mom and her kid was a little behind? She lit up with a million things she wanted to say to this woman. You know what, she thought, my God is bigger than the world’s statistics, so I don’t really care what any of you say. You don’t get to talk to me like that.

It’s all about her in the end. Everything is about them and their feelings. The truth doesn’t matter. God does care about these statistics and the consequences they bring, he specifically sets up the father as the head of the house to head this type of rebellion off at the pass.

Women always say some thing to the effect of ‘my truth’ is more important than ‘the truth’. It’s all phony baloney feel good nonsense that makes the geese in Sully more fully developed and truthful characters.

Perhaps the movie is intentionally undermining single motherhood? Showing that single motherhood is bad, despite the single mothers (the villains?) telling us otherwise?

No, it’s quite obviously an attempt to shame those who would say that children from single moms do worse than children from intact families. Even Dalrock skirts the issue with some re framing.

In the end, all three of these men did something truly extraordinary, and they deserve all of the adulation they have received.

Sure, they were brave in that instant. However, the exception doesn’t prove the rule. Most children from single mothers do not act in those ways, they have not been taught to sacrifice for others to that extent.

Those with an agenda always use the exception to bash you over the head with as the rule takes over society and destroys it. Stop arguing over the exception, to do so is to lose.

Perhaps the movie is intentionally undermining single motherhood? Showing that single motherhood is bad, despite the single mothers (the villains?) telling us otherwise?

It’s not uncommon for books or movies to have an unreliable narrator, whose version of events is not to be trusted. Or a villain who justifies his actions with arguments that are ultimately proven false?

I don’t think so, because the book is written by Anthony, Alek, Spencer, and a fourth man (Jeffrey E. Stern). It could be that Stern snuck this in on them, but I don’t think that is likely.

@Feministhater

Sure, they were brave in that instant. However, the exception doesn’t prove the rule. Most children from single mothers do not act in those ways, they have not been taught to sacrifice for others to that extent.

Those with an agenda always use the exception to bash you over the head with as the rule takes over society and destroys it. Stop arguing over the exception, to do so is to lose.

It was an instant that mattered. After the news this last week of four armed Sheriff’s deputies hiding in the parking lot while someone murdered students inside the Florida school, the heroism of these three unarmed men is even more on display. What Spencer did especially is truly worthy of all of the praise he has received.

I don’t think they had an intentional agenda to support ejecting fathers from the home. I think they probably internalized their mothers’ views of the world without even considering the contradiction. They are still young, so their thoughts could still change here.

In that specific instant, yes. In the grand scheme of things… trends matter more. Fathers in homes, raising their kids with supportive wives tend to raise kids that see purpose, both for sacrificing for a better life through hard work and through sacrifice of body and life. Mothers don’t, generally, impart this to their children.. we see this time and time again with those children from single mothers drifting towards drugs, gangs, abusive relationships, lack of work and a lack of purpose. Society suffers over the long-term and the few good apples that do turn their lives around without fathers don’t offset the many that can’t.

I will agree with you completely that they did something noble and ought be thanked for their actions. No quibble from me.

”Statistics? Joyce seethed. How dare this woman look down on her just because she was a single mom and her kid was a little behind? She lit up with a million things she wanted to say to this woman. You know what, she thought, my God is bigger than the world’s statistics, so I don’t really care what any of you say. You don’t get to talk to me like that…”

EXACTLY what you get if you try to confront a woman with facts, tell a woman something,try to ask her to modify her behavior however politely you ask, try to show her how to do something because you’ve been assigned that by your boss. You get rebellion, attitude, back-answering, the whole lot.

When it comes to single motherhood, we are supposed to believe that they are somehow godly because they haven’t aborted ”the fetus” and had ”the child”. We are also supposed to believe that they know best how to negotiate sex lives, care for children, be CEOs of companies and be bishops and pastors of churches.

In the grand scheme of things… trends matter more. Fathers in homes, raising their kids with supportive wives tend to raise kids that see purpose, both for sacrificing for a better life through hard work and through sacrifice of body and life. Mothers don’t, generally, impart this to their children.. we see this time and time again with those children from single mothers drifting towards drugs, gangs, abusive relationships, lack of work and a lack of purpose. Society suffers over the long-term and the few good apples that do turn their lives around without fathers don’t offset the many that can’t.

Right. This matters a great deal, which is why I write about it. The message is bad, which is why I wrote the post. But I’m also inclined to cut these young men some slack. They were harmed by having their fathers ripped out of their lives, even if they can’t see it. That they can’t see it is in fact part of the harm. Moreover, I can only imagine what kind of nonsense I would have written if I wrote a book about my life at age 24. So I will critique the message while admiring and praising their incredible bravery.

I’ve found a useful and tested method of shutting down mischievous and deceitful leftist/SJWs is to tell them ‘you need to give your father a call. He wants to have a sit-down with you.’ It does strike at the core of what is bothering a lot of people today, I conclude, since it stops them in their tracks.

I must say it is with great sadness I hear this report as I was so emotional at hearing the story of these true heros.
The movie allegedly not showing the fathers influence in these men’s lives leaves me only to conclude that is was the military service that “made men of them.’

This fits right in with judgy bitch and Dr Helen’s version of male disposability where males are only men if they risk their lives in combat “to protect women.”

The only thing that would fit this gynocentric principle better would be if the men where killed,’then would be truly be heros to the feminine imperative.

Personally my main emotion as man,was that these men took injury and continues to prosecute
(selflessly) their and the other passengers defense WITHOUT loss of life.

This is the beauty of the story,that good overcame EVIL.

But I guess we can thank their mommas and their “god” for that,not the “toxic” masculinity.

“Toxic” being defined as coming from inside a man,NOT at the direction of the FI.

I will take toxic over mangina WK every day of the week,thank you very much,and sadness to Mr. Clint Eastwood for not controlling the frame on this damn thing.

That is to say, it appears all credit for the substance of these men is laid at the Golden Alter of femlae worship,even if that has little to do with the story line.
The true fact on the ground is many factors,MOSTLY the fact those three had been MATES since childhood and this encouraged them to act as a team.
The true praise needs to be laid at the alter of male bonding,and the concept of loyalty,and honor,something women know NOTHING about.
Big thumbs down for the subversive family destroying lies,lies that destroy the very bonding that saved those lives on that train.
If momma had her way the boys would still be sucking tit.

Clint Eastwood has long been praised as a feminist. Consider some of his films:

* Unforgiven. I’ve not seen this western, but critics kept praising it for its feminism.

* Million Dollar Baby. I’ve not seen this one either. It’s about a woman boxer.

* The Bridges of Madison County. Not seen it. I heard it justifies female infidelity, and was praised for its sympathetic depiction of a woman’s perspective.

I did see High Plains Drifter and Magnum Force. Both had Strong Women. The latter film was the second Dirty Harry film, in which Dirty Harry initially balks at having a female partner. But she earns his respect in the end by dying in an act of bravery.

I Googled, and found these film critiques praising Eastwood for his feminism:

Eastwood took a risk on Unforgiven, altering the way it conveyed generic norms. Despite doing things differently in the long run this change turned out for the better. It became one of the most influential Western films of all time. One typical element challenged was the stereotypical role of gender. All though there are still many elements of sexism, inequality, and prejudice towards the females in the film there are many small tokens that show how the women in the film fight back and have some power.

One of the reasons I eventually gave up on being a conservative™ was this phenomenon. I have never been able to have a conversation with a single mom (aided by all the white knights orbiting the vicinity) without strong, unhinged emotional content.

I thought that being conservative™ meant that I could be compassionate for individual stories while still holding the line on rational discourse and policy.

But it does not matter how much you sterilize it, this:

You child is it at higher risk for [fill in the blank negative outcomes]

ALWAYS devolves into

My son is not a statistic! You are judging me as a parent! His father was a bastard!

And so on. And like I said, the men around always pile on as if you are the a-hole for pointing it out.

I am always somewhat ill-at-ease when people play themselves. Is Othello really that more authentic when the Moor himself plays the part and demonstrates exactly how he murdered Desdemona; likewise performing Murder in a Cathedral in a Cathedral does not make the play more believable for one is always acutely conscious that the Producer is attempting to pass off versimilitude for art; Koanga (set in Florida) with a black chorus (white singers need not apply) seemed to me to be entirely wrong even though the chorus looked pretty much as one would expect black people from Florida to look – not that I have ever been there.

I’ve enjoyed many Eastwood pictures over the years and when younger tried to learn more about the man versus the roles he played. This has always disappointed to various degrees with actors I admired so I eventually gave that up. I like them better the less I know.

He is a product of his era and environment, which remarkably enables a man to be simultaneously a TradCON white knight woman pedastalizer; and a chauvinistic, sexist, misogynist. Come to think about it, I myself have been or currently am all those things at once depending on who you ask, and I am not from Eastwood’s era or Hollywood. So maybe it’s not all that remarkable after all.

Dalrock keeps bringing up oddities in life that I wouldn’t have noticed on my own. Once I know what they are, I can’t talk about them with anyone unless I’m seeking some alienation on a local level. Which sometimes I am so it works out.

I see a difference in having strong female characters and that of actively promoting feminism. Take High Plains Drifter; the young woman develops a serious attraction for Eastwood’s character, one which he has to firmly discourage, thus earning her immature wrath. There is nothing wrong with strong women, (as long as they are balanced) but there is plenty wrong with strong independent women.

Or how about this wonderful scene?

Which is why I find it hard to equate this latest film with Eastwood. If even he can grow stupid and deluded in his old age then what hope is there for the rest of us?

The payoff is at the end when he says, “For Christians the enemy is always unbelief. But in our time, the culture of unbelief is a metastasized secularism, taking the form of every manner of sexual perversion. The sexual revolution has set up her guillotines in the square, and the Terror is about to commence. That will be seen when every form of copulation must be applauded, as though we were a stadium full of North Korean cheerleaders. That will be the culmination of it all. But the commencement of this sexual revolution—in which many Christians and Christian institutions are already complicit—is the demand that feminine feelings must be treated as the foundational measurement of social justice. If your classical Christian school, or if your Reformed church, sets policy in order to prevent hurt feelings, or worse yet, sets policy to prevent hypothetical hurt feelings at some indeterminate time in the distant future, your institution is already toast.” [emphasis mine]

Lost Patrol says:
Dalrock keeps bringing up oddities in life that I wouldn’t have noticed on my own. Once I know what they are, I can’t talk about them with anyone unless I’m seeking some alienation on a local level. Which sometimes I am so it works out.

So true, Lost Patrol. There is nothing you can really tell anyone, including at church. I’ve tried to explain what’s not so great about the various Christian movies discussed here, to no avail. You really can’t get a dialog going or get anyone to examine objections to the standard narratives.

Case in point, the introduction of a Rick Warren course into our Sunday morning study at church. I brought up a few objections (won’t say what they are here, other than, there is so much better available, so why this?). The group leader responded by giving the example of his cousin, a drug addict who was converted to Christianity and gave up his addiction after reading a book by Joel Olsteen. He said he knows Olsteen is questionable at best, but to point that out might upset his cousin’s newly-found faith. So, he said, people can be helped, even through the ministries of these people.

As Mark Twain said, the perfect rejoinder is something you think of 24 hours later. I should have asked the group leader if he thinks we’re all addicts and new believers whose faith may be upset by calling certain things into question.

The point is, you’re going to get answers based on false reasoning and feelings when you bring up objections to the usual narrative. Commenter Hmm points out above (at 7:14) that feminine feelings are the foundation. You know, “People are being helped, so it’s good. Don’t question it.”

Was listening to the local news / talk radio sation last night…….and from 8-10pm its a “local” show with a “conservative” host. This station during the day plays the usual “Rush / Hannity” lineup (KGO, Fresno)

Anyway, they were discussing the minimum wage in California. It is currently 10.50 per hour. SF and LA are higher.

This host as you would figure was blasting it. He had callers that were defending it and these callers of course were *not* making minimum wage. He had business owners calling in saying “well, the bottom line is taking a hit……layoffs coming” etc…

As usual, it was talking points and nothing was being accomplished. No one seemed to be convincing anyone differently. After an hour od this, I was so bored I was about ready to turn it off. Then a call came in.

It was a guy who was a little younger than me. He was making minimum wage, had a full forty hour work week. Seemed to be happy that it was higher, but he also brought up something that I agree with. “look, if you are a hard worker…..and spare me that everyone in a minimum wage job is a hard worker……..most are not….you will get forty hours. you will be an asset to your boss. you will not be cut hours, and in fact you will get more duties, and responsibility and skills.”

I applauded. I work minimum wage. I wasn’t griping about how low it was it, nor was I demanding it be raised. Ther fine Sate of California nor the USA “owes” me a living. When the increases started, I began to crank it out harder. Cuts came. I wasn’t let go. In fact My hours increased from 29 a week to forty. I am doing better because of it.

In the minimum wage world, there is PLENTY of dead weight. If you are indeed a hard worker, have more social skils than a tree and you know the difference between “King Lear and “King Kong” while at the same time using the mantra “what can I do to make my boss / supervisors job easier?” You will be fine. You more than likely won’t be cut in hours. Your job and duties won’t fall to AI or automation (just yet). Most minimum wage workers are always saying “what do I get?” instead of “what can I do”

Well…..this host was upset, tried to paint him as a “Clinton supporter” and “typical Californian” and a “lazy over educated worker”

Then WOMEN started calling in………not upset at this host, but ANGRY at this “previous caller” and every woman Said “I give 100% everyday, and I am a single mom, and minimum wage is required to give my kids the best they can have”

The host didn’t ask “who told you to have kids out of wedlock?” being the “bold” conservative that he is. No, the putz defends the women, makes this guy out to be not “a real man” but lazy. By the end of the show I was saying “so he supports the minimum wage increases now?” or “he supports them for single moms and others who can’t get anuthing else, and would rather just have them working instead of being on welfare?”

I didn’t like his snarky turn on the caller, and I didn’t like the blurring of the lines, and how sudddenly this is a “women’s issue”

“Veterinarians at the Oklahoma City Zoo are baffled by an 18-year-old lioness’ new hairdo.

The lioness, Bridget, mysteriously began to grow a mane between March and November of last year, the zoo said.

While male lions typically develop a mane at one year of age due to an increase in testosterone, it is ‘exceptionally rare’ for females to ever grow the extra hair, Gretchen Cole, an associate veterinarian at the Oklahoma City Zoo, told ABC News.”

The only evidence of women acting in power I saw in “The Unforgiven” was the bartender’s wife who wanted to bed Eastwood’s character and was jealous of the whores.
After Clint gave her the slapping around she needed to remind her she was a base animal,she had sex with him and later took to severely belittling and undermining her husband.

I guess in the feminist context of marriage is slavery,this women exercised her “power”
to satisfy her base lust and debase her confining marriage.

Marriage is for fools.
It’s Murica cuck-Nation!
Let’s do it in the streets.

Just remembered,Bartender’s wife tried to get her husband to kill Eastwood’s character.
She also tried to get Eastwood’s character to kill her husband.
But he just blew the place up room by room with dynamite,”setting her free.”
It really musta been tough on her watching those whores get laid all the time.

Things won’t change until more and more people do stand up and push back. Trump has done this in politics (whether you like him or not). We need many “Trumps” in our churches.

The group leader responded by giving the example of his cousin, a drug addict who was converted to Christianity and gave up his addiction after reading a book by Joel Olsteen. He said he knows Olsteen is questionable at best, but to point that out might upset his cousin’s newly-found faith. So, he said, people can be helped, even through the ministries of these people.

You don’t need to assault Joel Osteen. Just tell him something like, “Great! Now lets work with you about really learning the Scriptures and applying them to your life.” Don’t waste much time arguing against specific teachers in most cases. Focus instead on raising God’s Word in the view of those you speak with.

I would generally agree that working hard makes having a solid job much more likely, but it is not a guarantee. The minimum wage is a farce. It is actually favored by big companies because it helps keep out their competitors, who cannot afford to pay it. Not a good thing, not matter how many stories of specific people who benefit.

Some people may be worth less, but a minimum wage keeps them from working. Those women need to realize their foolish choices are what harm their children far more than any minimum wage.

You are right that it is a waste of time to argue with most people however, whatever their political bent. Too many fools out there. Have to wait and be ready for openings when people will consider things. Also oppose those who claim to support some things, but really support the opposite.

I support the use of cuckservative for this very reason. They have been cucked and are only seeking to conserve progressive gains, but that is another topic.

“7. MEN MY AGE OR OLDER ARE STILL SINGLE FOR A REASON.
Yes, I’m still single too, and that’s also for a reason—I won’t settle for just any guy.” ~ Strong, Independent, Single Woman Who Didn’t Need No Man Until She Realized She’s a Spinster

So, men who are still not married at her age are not married because they’re undesirable, but she’s still not married at her age because she has standards.

@Scott, the objective is to be on the right side of everything. Liberalism, or conservatism, or libertarianism cannot always be right in every circumstance on every issue despite their respective adherents falsely asserting otherwise. I always start by asking the question, “what is the right thing to do?” to lay the groundwork for the next question, “what is the best solution?” sans-ideologues.

That gal is so confused and messed up. Lives in a big city but expect to find a “mountain man”
She states she settled in the past, but I can guarantee you……..at the time she was convinced she wasn’t settling!!!!!!!!

And……and the guys :her age: who are single are “single for a reason”

But her????? No, no, no, no!!!!!! She is single because no man “can handle a strong independant urbane sex and the city type like herself” according to her. Typical self-absorbed city dwelling single woman. Make you bed. Sleep in it

But her????? No, no, no, no!!!!!! She is single because no man “can handle a strong independant urbane sex and the city type like herself” according to her. Typical self-absorbed city dwelling single woman. Make you bed. Sleep in it

@Adam
”Take High Plains Drifter; the young woman develops a serious attraction for Eastwood’s character, one which he has to firmly discourage, thus earning her immature wrath. There is nothing wrong with strong women, (as long as they are balanced) but there is plenty wrong with strong independent women.”

Are they strong as men are strong. Or are they greatly feminine of a kind and gentle spirit?

”Take High Plains Drifter; the young woman develops a serious attraction for Eastwood’s character, one which he has to firmly discourage, thus earning her immature wrath. There is nothing wrong with strong women, (as long as they are balanced) but there is plenty wrong with strong independent women.”

Are they strong as men are strong. Or are they greatly feminine of a kind and gentle spirit?

The second one, of course. Women who are strong as men are strong are known as bull-dykes.

Also, I made a mistake with my movie quote. I was referring to Pale Rider. Too many Eastwood movies …

Should we cut Mr Eastwood some slack? – he is not even young enough to be a boomer – I am sure the first time I saw him was as Rowdy Yates. In fact, I have only ever seen two of his movies, Coogan’s Bluff and Where Eagles Dare accompanied by my then girlfriends Joanna B and Alyson B – not at the same time of course. Have I missed something of cultural significance?

Center Parcs and the Southbank Centre in London are the latest organisations to say they will no longer advertise in the Daily Mail – with the former issuing an apology for doing so.

It follows a recent column in the newspaper by Richard Littlejohn that relates to Olympic diver Tom Daley and his partner Dustin Lance-Black, who this week announced they were having a child through a surrogate mother.

In the column, published on Thursday and titled “Please don’t pretend two dads is the new normal”, Littlejohn described the case as “the most extreme example yet of the demands of selfish adults being given priority over the best interests of the unborn child”. …

The news follows the growing prominence of the pressure group Stop Funding Hate, which targets businesses that advertise in the Sun, Express, and the Daily Mail. …

In a statement, Stop Funding Hate director Richard Wilson said today: “The Daily Mail is increasingly out of touch with the views of mainstream British society – and it’s no surprise that more and more advertisers are distancing themselves.”

Wilson pointed to a YouGov poll that found 58 per cent of people believe that companies should withdraw their advertising if it is placed next to content they think is racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic, and only 10 per cent of people believe the Daily Mail has a positive influence on society. …

The problem with following the example of people like Michael Pearl or Jim Elliot is that they got off to a dominating start over googly-eyed teenyboppers, who became adoring wives. I think I’d have been much happier if I hadn’t ever read “Passion and Purity” and tried to force every relationship into the unnatural mold of Jim and Elizabeth’s dysfunctional romance, which was held up in those days as the gold standard of courtship. Elizabeth was a skinny, homely, buck-toothed little girl who got star struck with and snagged the rugged, handsome Big Man on Campus at Wheaton, and stuck around hanging on his every word whilst he strung her along without even a kiss for five years. I think Pearls have a similar story.

Question,
Great find! I hope there is a post for it. That is almost word-for-word the exact advice I received from a year of counseling at my church, which is considered as patriarchal-friendly. Personally, I found the advice like a millstone around my neck. Just enough truth in it to make it credible. That is a grade-A example of the churchian status quo.

The Bridges of Madison County. Not seen it. I heard it justifies female infidelity, and was praised for its sympathetic depiction of a woman’s perspective.

Also never saw it. From what I read in the reviews I decided at that point I was done with Eastwood and his movies. Of course now I’m pretty much done will all movies. For a while I could stomach the Super Hero flicks, but even those have now gone full SJW retard.

The other day I watched an old movie: A Man For All Seasons. There’s no way anyone would make a movie like that today,

I have a female relative who fell into this trap. When she was in her prime she was a looker and had no shortage of suitors. She chose one, and after marrying him she quickly became dissatisfied and the marriage was nuked after just a few years. Then she hit the wall and found that the only guys who were interested in her didn’t meet her standards (they’re all old, short, fat and bald!). She never bothered to look in the mirror and notice that she was also fat, and older, not to mention divorced (which apparently was not an issue for her pastor, who would happily perform the wedding ceremony). Eventually she gave up and became a spinster with, yes, you guessed right, cats. Since she was divorced and there was absolutely no reason her marriage was invalid, it was perhaps for the best that no one was good enough for her.

The Southbank Centre despite its impressive sounding name is precisely one functioning concert hall. I have had now on more than one occasion to write and complain to its managing director. I receive professional replies. A recent edition of its monthly brochure had a smiling photo of Mrs Clinton on its front cover so you can guess what it is like. I was at the Centre (Hall, actually) on the day of the Brexit vote and endured overhearing the ushers and usherettes (about a dozen of them) celebrating victory – prematurely as it of course turned out – for the Remain camp. Traitors!

@Question
The article by Pearl at “nogreaterjoy” is from 2009. It’s older than many manosphere sites.

As tradcon advice goes it is not nearly as bad as I expected; there’s no “choreplay”, he even says that a husband is not a wife’s servant. He contradicts himself on the issue of rebuke; first insisting hsubands don’t have that right, then admitting later they do. Some of his advice would even be worthy of the androsphere, to be honest, although it is out of date.

Because it’s about 9 years old. There’s newer bad advice out there to deal with.

A question for The Question – did you see enough good in that to like it? He does use scripture a lot, which is good. I don’t buy his good statements such as, we are not their servants. I think he means to win them without a word, like the new post says. Like I said, my first-hand experience with such advice was to be discouraged from it. We are commanded to be a savior but their submittal is voluntary according to him. That sounds like winning them without a word. Am I asking for too much for such an article to just say, make him a sandwich and stop being so gosh-awful discontented?

@Swanny River
Am not Question but I read the entire article, as I mentioned there are parts that are worthy of the Androsphere. But there’s junk that contaminates it.

One might take Pearl’s essay and remove the gynocentric parts, then see what is left. Take the Bible quotes he includes and expand on them. It would be a good red-pilling exercise: put on The Glasses and see what parts he gets wrong, then rewrite them in a correct fashion that matches the reality we can all observe.

It’s that mixing of linen and wool that makes it a damning article to me. He shows no empathy to being with a contentious wife and no means by which the church should confront them. Just man-up. He just doesn’t seem cut out for a dirty and mean fight, and fighting feminism in Christian marriages will be ugly. Thanks for giving your thoughts on it.

A 40 year-old single woman at work just got preggers. She is a hottie and charmer, and was married briefly when she was young. Biggest encouragers of her? Two Christians and a Mormon. I think it is probably the role emotions play now, that these three are ignorant of the unwise incentives they are supporting. Their emotions feel godly to them, so there is nothing to cause them to reflect.

Whoa. I was doing a search because I was looking for something specific, but just so you know, you all went a whole post and comment thread without the word Jesus. Our host has his hobby horses, which I respect; well, one of mine is discussions of Christianity without discussion of the Christ.

Whoa. I was doing a search because I was looking for something specific, but just so you know, you all went a whole post and comment thread without the word Jesus. Our host has his hobby horses, which I respect; well, one of mine is discussions of Christianity without discussion of the Christ.

Whoa. I was doing a search because I was looking for something specific, but just so you know, you all went a whole post and comment thread without the word Jesus. Our host has his hobby horses, which I respect; well, one of mine is discussions of Christianity without discussion of the Christ.

This is the alternative definition of AMOG: The most Autistic Man Of the Group.

Yet even this you have done poorly, because you missed my reference to Christ in the OP:

This is delivered in such a way that it is clearly intended as one of the key feelgood lines of the movie. Ha! She sure taught that godless public school teacher a lesson about Christ!

But you didn’t use the word “Jesus” Dalrock so he is still correct! That is why he can win in his own mind no matter what you say.

Definitely an autistic point, but far too common in some Christian idiots (him not you) today. A useless faith that is following traditions (tossing in the word “Jesus” in this case) instead of preaching the faith accurately.

Definitely an autistic point, but far too common in some Christian idiots (him not you) today. A useless faith that is following traditions (tossing in the word “Jesus” in this case) instead of preaching the faith accurately.

Right. This blog sucks. He can prove his point by starting his own blog and preaching on it, and he should. There should be tons of blogs like these. Our enemies shouldn’t be able to open the internet without running into us.

Every new blog “triggers” a feminist. That’s enough reason to start one.

A 40 year-old single woman at work just got preggers. She is a hottie and charmer, and was married briefly when she was young. Biggest encouragers of her? Two Christians and a Mormon. I think it is probably the role emotions play now, that these three are ignorant of the unwise incentives they are supporting. Their emotions feel godly to them, so there is nothing to cause them to reflect.

Keep your wives away from Mormon women. We’re taught hate you guys, in the first place, and we’ll always celebrate your failures. We grow up being taught that our destiny is to replace you.

In the second place, Mormon women are the worst women imaginable, for divorcing their men. We don’t believe in Jesus and we don’t take your bible seriously. There’s no reason you guys should be associating with us in a personal way, except to demonstrate the moral superiority of Saul of Tarsus over Joseph Smith, by outdoing us in good things (like being good parents, for example).

I love my people, but I wish we would grow out of our stupid ideology of ressentiment. It’s no way to have a functional society.